Will occur on May 2. In 1604, King James I authorized an entirely new translation from the original languages. The work started in 1607 and the first draft was available in 1609. The work was completed for publication in 1611.
The work made use of Erasmus' compilation of a Greek New Testament. Erasmus' sources were not the greatest. Some of the manuscripts he included were as late as the 11th century. Nevertheless, he did the best he could at the time, and his work was critical for the development of a Bible based on the original languages.
As time goes on, I am more and more impressed with the King James Bible. This is not because of its supposedly exalted, Elizabethan language. In fact, there is less Elizabethan floridity in the KJV than people think. The KJV adds very little, if anything, to the Greek. Of all the major translations, the KJV is the one most likely to follow the Greek exactly.
The big complaint about the KJV is that it's hard to read, which it is. This is not because of its antiquated language or the quality of its translation. It is, rather, because the Bible itself is difficult to read. There's a reason Jesus said things like "those who have ears to hear, let them hear"--it's because what he was saying was hard to hear.
We also owe the language of the King James Bible to the genius of Tyndale, and Tyndale was writing with the intent of bringing the Bible to laypeople for reading and understanding. He wasn’t aiming for highflown language but simplicity. The language is strange to us, I suspect, because Tyndale and the scholars who came after him to produce the King James version had a feeling for the English language and rhetoric that is foreign to today’s biblical scholars, however well-meaning. The style also speaks well for the target audience of the time, especially when you consider the childish level at which some "modern translations" are written.
I like my Douai Catholic Bible, too, (my edition published with the approval of Cardinal Spellman, no less).
Posted by: Hypatia | February 17, 2011 at 12:38 PM
I keep getting Tyndale and Wycliff confused. Wasn't Tyndale the one who wound up getting burned at the stake?
The Douai Bible is OK for one that's based in Latin. (I never could understand peoples' affection for Latin. To me, Latin seems clunky and unwieldy.)
Posted by: John Petty | February 18, 2011 at 10:46 AM
Tyndale was burned at the stake, although not in England. Wycliffe died of natural causes, remarkably enough. The scholars who produced the KJV used his translation, also.
There's a long article on the KJV in the current London Review of Books by Diarmaid MacCulloch but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
Posted by: Hypatia | February 22, 2011 at 03:38 PM
I'm going to check that article. I just read a book by MacCulloch which was pretty good.
Posted by: John Petty | February 23, 2011 at 10:29 AM